Indiana's Wildlife - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 11/10/11

Presentation to the Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force November 10, 2011 INDIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION Common Sense Conservation Since 1938 Barb SimpsonExecutive Director

Indiana Wildlife Federation Mission To promote the conservation, sound management, and sustainable use of Indianas wildlife and wildlife habitat through education, advocacy, and action.www.indianawildlife.org

Indiana Wildlife Federation Common Sense Conservation since 1938 Diverse state-wide membership of individuals, conservation organizations and businesses Non profit 501(c)(3) Independent affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation

Advocacy  Indiana Heritage Trust  Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force  Phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer program  IDNR rule-making and legislation to ensure fish and wildlife protection  Sound sustainable energy policy  Regional and federal natural resources issues, e.g. Farm Bill, Great Lakes Compact, Clean Water Actwww.indianawildlife.org

Education Private lands conservation programs  Partner with NRCS, IDNR, SWCD Wildlife Friendly Habitat projects:  Backyard, Schoolyard, Neighborhoods, Businesses Environmental education in our schools  Indiana Environmental Literacy Plan Clean energy, sustainable strategies  Electric vehicles public forum Water quality workshops

Landscaping the Sustainable Campus Campuses using P-free fertilizer : Universities or colleges interested in sustainable lawn care, reducing lawn size, and certifying natural areas as wildlife friendly habitats Working with administration, staff, faculty, & students 10 Indiana universities

The Health of Indiana’s Water  What nutrient problems threaten fish and wildlife?  How can clean water & healthy habitats be restored?  6 workshops statewide:  Lafayette  Hanover  Portage  Evansville  Terre Haute  Muncie

Support Phosphorus-free Initiatives  Increased availability of P-free fertilizer in stores and from lawn service companies:  Scotts Miracle-Gro Company will have P-free Turf Builder line by 2012  TruGreen and Engledow Group are already P-free

Conservation Outreach and Education IWF partners with NRCS, IDNR, SWCS  Private landowners  Little Calumet-Galien watershed  Healthy Rivers Initiative-Wabash and Muscatatuck River watersheds  Conservation practices, landowner assistance programs, and technical assistance  Emphasis on WRP, WHIP, EQIP, andWabash Corridor invasive species

Wildlife FriendlyCertification Program  Provided technical assistance, coordination, and follow-up for 22 projects (~530 ac.) in 2010.  Included restoration (new habitat) and management (improve existing habitat) projects.  Grassland plantings, tree/shrub plantings, wetland construction, and invasive species control.

Wildlife in Indiana The Indiana setting and state comparisons Wildlife - health of the resource and challenges  Game species  Non-game species Habitat threats Wildlife associated recreation  Hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife watching participation  Economics Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats: One perspective An Indiana Success Story – Sneak Peak

The Indiana Setting Smallest state west of the Appalachian Mountains 11 natural regions Land cover  72% agriculture  19% forest  4.3% urban/suburban  4% wetlands and water Great diversity due to Lake Michigan to the north, Ohio River to the south, and the Wabash River to the west. Sources: Wilson, J., Indiana in Maps-Geographic Perspectives of the Hoosier State, 2003. Simon, T., Fishes of Indiana, A Field Guide, 2011

Indiana has diversenatural regions thatprovide uniquehabitats. Lake Michigan NW Moraines Northern Lakes Grand Prairie Central Till Plane Southern Bottomlands SW Lowlands Shawnee Hills Highland Rim Bluegrass

Indiana state-owned public land Less than 5% of Indiana lands are publically owned. http://www.in.gov/dnr/3233.htm

State Comparisons: Population, Parks, Visitors State Population Size State Parks Visits Visits per (millions) (sq. miles) (millions) parkIllinois 12.9 55,600 44 30.0 682,000Ohio 11.54 41,000 75 54.3 724,000Michigan 9.88 96,810 100 21.2 212,000Indiana 6.48 35,900 25 15.4 616,000Missouri 6.00 69,700 85 15.9 187,000Wisconsin 5.69 54,300 106 14.5 137,000Minnesota 5.30 86,900 66 9.5 144,000Iowa 3.05 55,900 69 14.0 203,000 Source: TNC data summary distributed to SNRTF

Wildlife in IndianaTheir Basic Needs Food Shelter Water Space-privacy

>700 Vertebrate Species in Indiana Vertebrates >700  Invertebrates >2000  Birds 390+  Insects  Fish 190+  Crustaceans  Reptiles 50+  Arachnids  Mammals 50+  Mollusks  Amphibians 30+  Worms  Sponges

Wildlife - Hunting and Trapping Woodland game  Fur bearing game  Deer  Beaver  Ruffed Grouse  Coyotes  Squirrel  Mink  Wild Turkey  Muskrats  Opossum Upland game  Raccoons  Pheasant  Red Fox  Quail  Rabbit

White-tailed Deer Reintroduced in 1934, now overabundant Est. 34,000+ deer-vehicle collisions 2009-2010 Populations are controlled primarily by hunters Future management will require a much more proactive approach to increasing annual deer harvests 80% of counties (red and orange) above target density Over browsing has negative ecological impact

Ruffed Grouse 1 of only 3 native game birds Requires young forest habitat 90% of IN forests are between 20 and 99 years of age Need increased timber harvests where remnant populations are found or this species will not be in Indiana Need forest age diversity for numerous species, not just grouse.

Northern Bobwhite Quail Facing consistent long-term population declines Requires early successional grassland and shrubland habitat High grain prices and intensive farming are rapidly increasing threats Small habitat changes at a broad scale could result in tremendous rebounds Funding and outreach for landowner assistance programs is vital Indiana Quail Population Trends

Game fish in Indiana Native  Black bass  Bluegill  Crappies  Catfish  Other pan fish  Trout and salmon Introduced sport fish  Walleye  Striped bass  Hybrid striped bass  Muskellunge

Black Bass Includes largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass Abundance and individual health varies greatly across their distribution, but generally stable statewide Major threats are primarily  Sedimentation of streams  Eutrophication of lakes  Other habitat concerns  Not necessarily pressure from harvest

Game Species for Trapping Species Total Sold Avg. Price 2011 YTD Muskrats 551 6.30 Raccoons 467 11.25 Red Fox 3 28.00 Mink 33 16.00 Coyotes 13 7.00 Beaver 2 15.00 Opossum 25 1.35 Grey Fox 0 0 Skunks 0 0 Weasels 1 1.00 http://www.indianatrappers.org/

US Hunters and Anglers Declining Indiana trend is similar2006 participation rate in Indiana: 5.5% hunters, 13.1% anglers Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

IN Deer Hunters above the national average Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Deer Harvest in IndianaRise indicates growth in deer population

IN Turkey Hunters above the national average Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

IN Black bass anglers > US participation rateSource: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Hunter and angler access issues Anglers:  Good access sites around lakes are gone  Expensive to get new access sites  Stream access limited if not “navigable”  Must be in a boat. Cannot wade “non-navigable” streams Hunters:  Less than 5% of Indiana is public land  Access to private lands is limited  Liability issues  Some states pay a fee to landowner for access to hunt.  Less land to hunt - land use changes

More people hunt on private landsAccess is key to preserving hunting tradition Source: Trends in Hunting on Public and Private Land, USFWA, 2006

Whooping cranes use Indiana habitat on their migration route Photos taken at Goose Pond FWA

Wildlife Diversity >90% of Indiana mammals, birds, fish, mussels, reptiles and amphibians are non-game species IC 14-22-34 requires: “The development of programs designed to ensure the continued ability of nongame species in need of management to self perpetuate successfully. Funded only through the voluntary tax check off Nongame Fund and State Wildlife Grants No state tax appropriations.

>700 Vertebrate Species in Indiana124 are State Endangered (63) or Special Concern (61) Total SE or SC  Birds 390+ 47  Fish 190+ 25  Reptiles 50+ 19  Mammals 50+ 22  Amphibians 30+ 11 Success stories: Bald eagle, River otter, Bobcat “All the easy ones have been done” www.endangeredwildlife.in.gov

>2000 Invertebrate Species in Indiana  Invertebrates >2000  Only mollusks tracked for  Insects Endangered or Special concern  Crustaceans status  Arachnids  Mollusks:  State endangered 15  Mollusks  Special concern 11  Worms  Federal endangered 10  Sponges Fanshell White Cat’s PawMollusks are the “canary in the coal mine” for water quality.

Indiana’s 16 Federally Endangered Species Mammals  Mollusks  Gray Myotis  Fanshell  Indiana Myotis  White Cat’s Paw  Northern Riffleshell Birds  Tubercled Blossom  Whooping Crane  Pink Mucket  Piping Plover  White Wartyback  Least Tern  Orangefoot Pimpleback  Kirtland’s Warbler  Clubshell  Rough Pigtoe  Fat Pocketbook

~75% of all animal species are insects Insects provide critically important services: pollination, pest control, a food source for wildlife. We must understand the role of insects in the food chain. “IDNR does not have statutory responsibility or expertise to direct conservation and management practices for most groups of invertebrate wildlife.” from ICWS, pg.28 Div. of Entomology and Plant Pathology is a small group with broad responsibilities focused on the commercial nursery and pollinator industries, e.g. commercial bees, emerald ash borer, gypsy moth.

Non-game Species on the Rise Bobcat, river otter, osprey, bald eagle, others rebounding statewide Due to successful reintroductions & intensive management IDNR Division of Fish & Wildlife’s Wildlife Diversity Section has been a tremendous success

Non-game Species in Trouble Declines due to complex issues  Indiana Bat – disease and habitat loss  Box turtles, whip-poor-wills, freshwater mussels – habitat loss Several species require rare and declining habitat  Young forests, large forest blocks, wetlands, grasslands, and clean water

Threats to Wildlife Habitat  Pollution - sediment,  Loss for breeding excess nutrients  Loss for feeding  Agriculture/forestry  Fragmentation practices  Impedes movement and migration  Climate change  Size-scale is critical  Counter economic or Invasive species policy incentives  Commodity prices Diseases  Farm bill cutbacks  Energy strategies Source: Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy

Invasive species threaten Indiana’s Ecology and Economy Zebra mussels-established Emerald ash borer-spreadingSea lamprey attached to trout-ongoing control and expense Feral hogs-growing issue

Asian carp are in Indiana rivers and are threatening the Great LakesEagle Marsh fence

Invasive plants threaten wildlife habitat andForest-Japanese Stilt grass working landsFarmlands/open space-Canada Thistle Wetlands-Phragmites australis

Wildlife Corridors-An Approach “Green Infrastructure” to reduce habitat fragmentation Networks of:  Natural lands  Working lands  Other open spaceshttp://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/definition-green-infrastructure

Connecting public lands via wildlife corridors

Indiana’s restored wetlands play an important role in migratory bird patterns. North American Flyways  Mississippi Flyway

American White PelicanFirst observed 1892 - Next observed in 2009 State record high count 359 in 2010 Migratory pattern is shifting eastward due to wetlands in Indiana

32 Species of Shorebirds migrate thru Indiana- from the Arctic to South America Stilt Sandpiper, 70 in 2010. State Record High Count at Goose Pond FWA Source: Lee Sterrenburg

Wildlife Watching

How many Hoosiershunt, fish, and watch wildlife? 000’sBass 324Catfish 223Deer 231Turkey 35Waterfowl ---Watchers 2,042

How does Indiana compare: hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers? State Bass Catfish Deer Turkey Waterfowl Watchers 000’s 000’s 000’s 000’s 000’s 000’sIndiana 324 223 231 35 --- 2,042Kentucky 344 275 238 76 --- 1,475Illinois 378 335 204 61 65 2,566Ohio 457 288 426 96 --- 3,489Michigan 531 64 713 81 --- 3,227 Sources: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service Report 2006-1 Wildlife Watching in the US: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economics in 2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Participation and expenditures-2006 Hunting, fishing, wildlife watching in IndianaActivity Participants Expenditures Avg. /Person Retail salesFishing 768,000 $627 mil $773Hunting 272,000 $223 mil $791Wildlife 2,042,000 $933 mil $453watching

Bird-watching is the fastest growingoutdoor pastime Source:“America’s Wildlife: The Challenge Ahead International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

Economic Value of $MillionsWildlife Watching Retail sales $934in Indiana Ripple effect $1,593 Salaries and owner $535 income Jobs 18,380 State/Local Tax $128 Revenue Federal Tax $117 RevenueSource: Report 2006-1 Wildlife Watching in the US: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economics,US Fish and Wildife Service

State Budget 2011-2013“Conservation and Environmental” = 1.1% http://www.in.gov/sba/files/ap_2011_b_x.pdf

Funding Natural Resources? State budget funds? Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT)?  A municipality receives a payment in lieu of property or sales tax revenue from another government entity that owns a real asset, such as land, or a valuable right-of-way.  Federal to state PILT Other new funding mechanisms?

One perspective…. Strengths Weaknesses Collaboration among Lack of overarching strategic alignment conservation community among all conservation entities Major Rivers and Lake Inadequate funding for management and Michigan conservation of wildlife and habitat; stS maintenance of equipment and facilities, wildlife monitoring and research Committed people Inadequate people resources Diverse habitats Outreach and education activities limited Proven success stories Hunter/angler fees pay for all who use public wildlife areas Indiana has 2nd highest prime Conservation best management practices on farm acreage working lands not fully utilized to benefit wildlife and habitat Strong hardwoods market Too many programs depend on grants

One perspective… Opportunities ThreatsSNRTF-can be a turning point in Habitat loss, fragmentation,Indiana’s approach to conservation degradationHealthy Rivers Initiative and Wildlife Invasive speciesCorridors approach stSOutdoor recreation has economic impact Water quality and quantityMigratory waterfowl returning Children losing their connection to natureWildlife watching growing Federal and state cuts in conservation fundingFind a way to get non-consumptive users Loss of hunters/anglersto financially support natural resourcesNeed energy strategy that includes Energy strategies can conflict withstewardship of natural resources. conservation objectives

A Success Story…… Goose Pond Fish and Wildlife Area

Greene CountyCirca 1869

Drainage began in earnest at theturn of the last century. Farmedfor 100 years.

Goose Pond Fish and Wildlife Area 8000 acres wetland restoration under the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program Diverse habitat:  1380 acres prairie  400 acres hardwood trees  >4000 acres open water Funding through complex partnerships:  The Nature Conservancy  Ducks Unlimited  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service  Federal Highway Administration  US Fish and Wildlife Service  State of Indiana agencies  Other conservation groups, communities, individuals

Goose Pond….the Story of a Wetland and its Neighbors Lee Sterrenburgwww.friendsofgoosepond.org

Indiana's Wildlife - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 11/10/11

by Indiana Wildlife Federation

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics